Evidence for the Existence of the Christian God

Note: I originally wrote this essay back in my Apologetics class at bible college, and I lately revamped it for a pair of Sunday school lessons. I love talking apologetics... its good stuff. For more detailed information about this and other apologetic topics, check out: Ehud the Disciple: Currently Reading

Evidence for the Existence of the Christian God

By Ehud

The title that I chose for this paper was not phrased the way it is by accident. I am going to attempt to present evidence for the existence of the Christian God. I am not going to prove with one hundred percent certainty that the Christian God exists. I do, however, believe that the vast majority of evidence truly does point towards the existence of God.

The first pieces of evidence that I would like to present relate to the beginning of the universe. First off, if something begins to exist, there needs to be something that caused it to begin to exist. There is no reasonable way for you as an atheist to argue against this. It is completely illogical to expect nothing to come from nothing. Nothing is what rocks think about! Next, there is convincing evidence that the universe began to exist. For instance, look at the laws of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics shows that the amount of energy in the world does not change. The second law of thermodynamics indicates that the amount of usable energy in the world is being depleted. So, the universe will eventually run out of energy. This fact indicates that there must have been a point in time when the universe was all usable energy. So the universe must have had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, and every beginning requires a cause, it naturally follows that the universe had a cause. You may argue that the Big Bang was the cause of the universe. But what caused the Big Bang? You might say, “Well, then who made (or caused) God?” Well, as we were discussing, everything that had a beginning requires a cause. However, God never had a beginning; He has always existed. Therefore, God doesn’t need a cause. 

The second convincing group of evidence relates to the design of the universe. If design exists, it is only logical that a designer designed and made it. If you are walking along a beach, and see the words “Greg was here” drawn in the sand, you would automatically assume that someone named Greg had been there and had drawn those letters into the sand. Why do you think that, though? By evolutionary standards, could not these words have been eroded into the sand by wave action? No, it would be completely ludicrous to think that. But why exactly is it ludicrous to believe that the words “Greg was here” did not come about by natural causes? The answer: those words contain information. The problem (for atheists) is that we see information all around us in nature. Darwinist Richard Dawkins, who is a professor of zoology at Oxford University, has stated that the message found in just a single amoeba is so large that it would fill up 1,000 sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica! That is a great deal of information. Furthermore, information must come from a mind. How can Darwinian evolution explain the information that we see in nature? It simply cannot! The only logical explanation is that God created it and put it there!

Finally, I think that the existence of morality gives great evidence for the existence of God. You as an atheist may state that if there was a God, then there would be no evil in the world. But here is my question to you: what is evil? The answer: evil is the deviation from the way things should be. How then do we know the way things should be? The only way to know the way things should be is by having a higher standard to compare the world to. God is that standard. If there is no God, everything comes down to your personal likes and dislikes. We have already determined that information cannot appear by natural means, and as morality is not a physical thing, it cannot be produced by any means of evolution. So morality cannot come from evolution, and it also cannot come from within us. If it came from within, what would stop you from changing your mind about the principle “murder is wrong?” Some atheists claim that morality comes from society, but that simply cannot be the case. If society dictated good and evil, then the Holocaust would have been completely moral, but the work of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Teresa would not have been. The German society was (on the whole) behind Hitler, and his elimination of the Jews. Does that make it moral to commit genocide? I doubt it! The majority of society was against Martin Luther King Jr. and black rights for a very long time. Does that make it immoral to fight racism? I believe not! Therefore, morality has to come from someone that is above all people and societies. That is the only way a real moral law can exist. Admittedly, there are some atheists that deny that the moral law exists at all. They are sorely mistaken. If I was to walk up to an atheist who espoused this sort of thinking and punch him in the jaw and break it, I think he would probably call the police and report me. But wait a second: if a moral law does not exist, then what is wrong with me breaking this atheist’s jaw? Nothing! You see, he really does follow a moral law.

In conclusion, the existence of the God of the people who call themselves Christians is almost undeniable! The fact that God had to cause the universe to come into being, the fact that information could only have come from an intelligent being (God), and the fact that without God morality would not exist are all incredible evidence for the existence of God!

Abortion Gift Certificate

Give the gift of abortion! This is wrong in so many ways... seriously!

This is straight up ridiculous! Even coming from an atheistic world view, would someone honestly enjoy unwrapping that on Christmas day? I doubt it!

Tolerance?

Check this out from Stand to Reason... interesting... what happens if I decry Islam on my blog, hmm?

Finished Reading

Every Man's Battle
by Stephen Arterburn, Fred Stoeker, and Mike Yorkey

It's a war.

Currently Reading

Your First Two Years in Youth Ministry
by Doug Fields

Great book by a very gifted man, very thought provoking and insightful. I have been studying through it with a great guy who has been doing youth ministry for over 14 years, and it has started great conversation!

Currently Reading

I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek

I originally got this book at bible college and had to read some sections of it there, I'm currently trying to go through it cover to cover.

Excellent book! Very professional, I love how Geisler and Turek quote loads of atheist sources that support their points... these guys are brilliant!

Eternal Enmity

The purpose of this paper is to provide a rough outline of the enmity that existed between the seed of the serpent and the people of Israel. In the beginning in the Garden of Eden, everything was just fine until Adam and Eve decided to break the one rule that God had given them. So, God cursed the serpent, and in Genesis 3:15 God laid out the protoevangelium: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.’” From that point onward enmity has existed between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. There are many examples of how the enmity between the “spiritual seed” of the serpent and the seed of the woman, but in this paper only a handful will be presented in detail

The first example of hostility is Cain’s murder of Abel in Genesis chapter 4. Cain chose not to bring the correct sacrifice to God, and God rejected it. Abel, on the other hand, brought a sacrifice that was pleasing to God. This made Cain jealous, and he murdered his brother. However, the seed line persisted through Adam and Eve’s next son, Seth.

One of the biggest attempts on or the biggest displays of enmity against the seed line was probably the Nephilim. The Nephilim were the sons of fallen angels and human women. By having the fallen angels commit these heinous acts, Satan was attempting to pollute the human race with “angelic genetics,” if you will. And as the Bible makes it clear that angels cannot be redeemed, if the seed of the woman was polluted with the blood/genetics of the Nephilim, it might be possible that they could not be redeemed. God ended up sending a worldwide flood to annihilate the entire world, and it took care of the Nephilim.

The enmity did not stop there. It continued throughout the entire book of Genesis. One of the next significant examples of hostility is Ishmael and Isaac. While Ishmael was Abraham’s first born son, that was not the son that God had chosen to have the seed line go through. It was Isaac. But Isaac ended up getting the blessing, so all was well. Isaac’s sons were not immune to this either, and Esau’s murderous feelings toward Jacob caused a great deal of ruckus. In the end, the seed line persevered. Joseph and his brothers were also in conflict, but this time around it was by means of jealousy. Joseph’s brothers did not murder him; they sold him into slavery. But through God’s providence, it all worked out for good.

Yet another monumental instance of enmity was the conflict between Israel and Egypt. As a part of that conflict, Pharaoh decided that in order to control the population of Israel, that all males born had to be thrown into the Nile. This happened, not so coincidentally, right about the time Moses was born. The seed of the serpent did not succeed in eliminating Moses. Moses was taken in and raised by none other than Pharaoh’s daughter! A second part of the conflict between Egypt and Israel was Pharaoh’s hardness of heart in refusing to let the people go. Finally, after the death of his firstborn son, he was compelled to release the nation of Israel to go their way. Even then Pharaoh changed his mind and decided to chase them down with chariots. However, God was still with the nation of Israel, and He sent the waters of the Red Sea crashing down upon them.

The enmity also continued on throughout Exodus, usually exhibited in the ways Israel grumbled against God or turned away from Him. One colossal example of this took place right after the Israelites came out of Egypt and Moses was on Mt. Sinai talking with God. The Israelites decided that it would be a good idea to make themselves a golden calf to worship. Well, it was not such a great idea, and they got in major trouble. Even though they got in major trouble, God’s people managed to come out the other side of the trial, and Satan did not really win.

Later on in the Pentateuch, Miriam and Aaron complained against Moses. Doubtless, the seed of the serpent was attempting to spread division throughout the camp. It was quickly quelled when Miriam contracted leprosy. Again, the Israelites (led by Korah) openly rebelled against Moses and Aaron. This was yet another attempt to spread division throughout the camp. God overcame it, and struck dead all who were in the rebellion. Moses and Aaron received the blame for the deaths of all of those people, and God killed another 14,700 Israelites because of it. A little while later, the people rebelled yet again. God sent snakes into the camp, and they bit people and many people died. But because of the bronze serpent on a staff that Moses was instructed to make, many people survived. These are all examples of how the seed of the serpent tried to divide the nation of Israel, but it never really seemed to work.

There is also evidence of enmity in the gospels. In John 8, the Pharisees continuously try to bring Jesus down, to throw a figurative stick in his bicycle spokes. Again and again they attacked him, but Jesus would have none of it. They could not succeed in ruining Jesus testimony or finding a flaw in his teaching. No matter how hard the seed of the serpent tried, it could not bring down the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the seed of the woman. Perhaps Satan thought that when Jesus was crucified that the seed of the woman had been defeated, but in all actuality Jesus “crushed his head.” In the end, the seed of the woman stands victorious!

In conclusion, I think the biggest thing that we in 2007 can draw for this is how God is truly in control of everything. God has a plan already laid out, and nothing that Satan can do will ever be big enough to mess with the plan. He is ultimately in control, and we can rest safe in that knowledge. We do not need to worry about anything; He will take care of us!

Letter to an Evolutionist

Note: the premise for this essay is that it was to be written in the form of a letter to an evolutionist friend of ours.

What up Ben!

Hey dude, it was totally awesome to run into you at the mall the other day! I had no idea that you had transferred to Montana State! We have got to get together and Halo over Thanksgiving vacation. I would definitely be stoked to come down and check out Bozeman.

So yeah, I’ve been thinking about the whole evolution versus creation deal a lot since we talked, and there’s just some stuff that I’m pretty sure you should know. I just want you to have all the facts on the matter, and not just some of them.

Ben, most of what I want to talk to you about has to do with fossils. The fossil record just does not line up with the theory of evolution, no matter how hard the so-called “scientists” make it try to. (I put scientists in quotations because they are not letting the scientific method lead them where the evidence points. They are basing their conclusion on their hypothesis, not on the evidence and data that is out there, totally visible for everyone to see.)

As you very well know, evolutionists state that fossils took millions of years to form. Well, the evidence does not really support that at all. In fact, it supports just the opposite: a rapid burial of the organisms that were fossilized. The fossils of jellyfish show the fleshy parts of the organism, which indicates the jellyfish must have fossilized before it could decay. Now, how would that have happened over millions of years? You know that the flesh of creatures and plants and etc. decays rapidly. So how do you get the jellyfish fossil?

On top of that, what do you do with fossils that depict one animal swallowing another, or one animal inside a larger one’s stomach? Those most definitely could not have happened over several million years. It must have taken place very rapidly. And what is more, all of the sediments that these fossils were deposited in were sorted out by water.

Now how do evolutionists explain this away? They don’t. They ignore the evidence. So what is the real explanation? What could possibly explain these extraordinary phenomena? About the only thing that makes sense is a massive, worldwide flood… a flood such as the one detailed in Genesis chapters 6-8. As it says in Genesis 7:11-12, 17-23

“¹¹ …on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. ¹² And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. … ¹⁷ For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. ¹⁸ The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. ¹⁹ They rose greatly on the earth and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. ²⁰ The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. ²¹ Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. ²² Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. ²³ Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.”

So you can see that there was a lot of moving and shaking going down all over the earth. And in Genesis 6:24 it says “The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.” Think about how that changed stuff around, and laid down the sedimentary layers, and how the fossils were made so quickly.

I know this might all be a bit to digest dude, but bear with me, and hear me out. You know, I do deserve a hearing, as we were such good friends all the way through school. So hang with me, and please, don’t get all “up in arms” or anything. Just think about this stuff.

The sedimentary layers bit brings me to another point. Have you ever looked at how they are laid out? They’re laid out in parallel layers. Go to the Grand Canyon and check it out. Parallel layers straight across. Now, if these layers had been deposited at a slow rater over many thousands/millions of years, what would an evolutionist expect to see? The answer: uneven layers. He would expect the rivers of the time to have eroded chasms into the rock (which they believed caused the fossils: river deltas) causing uneven layers. But dude, is that what’s out there? No way! I mean think about it, the whole evolutionary side of the discussion does not seem to add up at all!

Hey, by the way, if you have any good answers from the evolutionary side of things to throw back at me, I would love to hear them. So yeah, just right down ideas as you go along. I seriously would like to know where you stand with all of this.

Another good bit of info popped into my mind about sedimentary layers: what about things that are fossilized across several layers? According to evolution, that shouldn’t be possible due to the thousands/millions of years between the depositization of each layer. For instance, check out this old school tree:

You can see the one meter marker dealio, and all the layers that that this fossil tree crosses. Now, how can evolution explain this? It should have rotted off, and only been in one layer, not the whole bunch of layers that it crossed. In addition to that, some of these trees that cross all of these layers are fossilized upside down. This could occur in a large flood. After Mt. St. Helens erupted, scientists discovered trees that were buried in pretty much the same way in Spirit Lake in pretty much the same way that scientists have found them fossilized all over the world.

Seriously man, all of this stuff with the sedimentary layers… I’m not quite sure how it can be refuted! Now if you’ve got anything, be sure to email me back and tell me. I’m serious. Because really, maybe it is just me being stuck in my ways, but I am just not believing the evolutionists on this! I’m thinking that it is the evolutionists that are stuck in their ways! If they cannot see, or choose not to see the compelling evidence in front of them… I don’t know. To me, it is just staggering how so many people can take this stuff and believe it as fact. Ben, I know that you are a really smart guy. Please tell me that you see what I’m seeing!

There is the possibility that you are totally against everything I’m saying to you, and that I’ve offended you with every single word that I have written, even the bits were I was like “I’m trying not to offend you.” Ben, I seriously am not attacking you. I just want you to get an idea that there is another side to the issue, that evolution is hardly a proven fact. Ben, I really do care for you, and I really do hope that this stuff sinks in.

And remember, we seriously have to play some Halo some time very soon! Everyone that I’ve been playing around here has pretty much sucked and not been a challenge at all, so yeah, I want to Halo! And maybe we can discuss evolution while we are slaughtering each other.

So right me back!

-Ehud

Art?

I read a blog by a friend of mine the other day which expounded on the essence of art. His general conclusion went something along the lines of: "No one can give art any inherent worth other than the artist. It is a mode of self expression, and as such, how "good" or "bad" the art is can only be determined by how pleased the artist himself is with his work of art. No one can say what is and is not art, and when one attempts to make art for anyone else other than himself, he fails to do so." (That, more or less, was his conclusion.)

I replied with a comment that read: "i'd just like to say "amen brother!" couldn't agree with you more. art is inherently and inseparably self expressive."

But, in light of this, I may have to completely retract my earlier statement. But that is something to think on: What is art? And what are the boundaries on works of art?

A sad thing

It is a sad thing if members of a church make a petty matter into something big enough to make a youth pastor think of resigning....
.....especially if said youth pastor was not in the wrong.

That is all I know. But it is a sad thing.

How I Know the New Testament Documents Are Reliable

Note: this is a paper I wrote some time ago for Apologetics.

The authenticity of Christianity is greatly affected by the reliability of the New Testament documents. If they are reliable, the Christian faith is really bolstered. If they are not dependable, then Christianity does not count for a whole lot.

The first proof of the New Testament documents’ reliability comes from the accuracy of the copies that we have. Now, when a historian is doing a textual criticism, there are two things that he would look at: how many handwritten copies are in existence and how close are the copies to the original. Let us compare the New Testament to other similar historical documents. Tacitus’ Annals has 20 copies currently in existence, the oldest of which dates back to 1,000 years after the original was written. Caeser’s Gallic Wars currently has 10 copies, and the oldest copy is also dated at 1,000 years after the original came into existence. The Illiad still has 643 handwritten copies around, the oldest of which is dated within 400 years of the original. Looking at those three, the Illiad seems to be impressively preserved throughout the passage of time. So how does the New Testament compare? There are currently 24,000 handwritten copies of the New Testament in existence, 5,000 of which are Greek and 19,000 of which are in other languages. In addition to that, the oldest copy of the New Testament is dated to less than 50 years after the original! Now, compare the statistics of the New Testament to those of the other three books that I mentioned. The New Testament “blows them out of the water!” Since there are so many copies of the New Testament to look at, it is relatively easy to cross examine them and find mistakes. If you were to talk to an honest textual critic, he would tell you that there is only about 1 percent of the entire New Testament that is disputable at all. And of that 1 percent, there is not a single doctrine that finds its basis in those texts.

Secondly, the original writers were qualified eyewitnesses that recorded current events of the time, and not events long past. How do I know that the writers are eyewitnesses? Well to begin with, the writers claim that they are either eyewitnesses or that they have had in-depth interviews with eyewitnesses about the events that took place. Additionally, the writers include a great many facts that have been verified historically. Luke includes 80 historical facts in the books of Acts, all of which have been independently corroborated. Also, the writers of the New Testament include internal evidence that proves that these accounts were written rather recently following the death of Jesus Christ. For instance, the book of Acts ends with a cliff-hanger: Paul in jail, waiting for his sentence. If it had been written after Paul’s execution, his death most certainly would have been included in the account. In Acts Luke states that his other book was already written, so the Gospel of Luke predates the book of Acts. The vast majority of the prominent critics agree that the Gospel of Luke quotes material from Mark, so Mark must predate Luke. This proves that both Luke and Mark were written only about 20 or 30 years after Jesus’ death. In addition to that, the Gospel of John was most likely written before Jerusalem was destroyed, because John fails to mention this monumental occurrence despite the fact that Jesus predicted that it would happen. So these books most definitely were written shortly after the death of Jesus, and not hundreds of years later. Therefore, it would have been impossible for legend to mingle with the facts because people reading the books would have known what had taken place!

Finally, some atheists assert that the disciples did not tell the truth when they wrote the gospel accounts. But if the gospels had been fabricated, the writers would have to have cast themselves in a good light to add credibility to their tale. That is not how the writers are presented however. The writers are shown to have been cowards who would not stick with Jesus when times got hard. Also, the writers were very careful to distinguish Jesus’ words from their own. If the disciples had put words in Christ’s mouth, they would definitely have including certain items that would have cleared up controversy in the early church. However, that is not what we find. We find that the controversial issues in the early church are issues that Jesus did not discuss. That does not fit with the assertion that the disciples put words in Jesus’ mouth. In addition to those two points, the disciples eventually died for their beliefs. Almost all of them died horrible, torturous deaths. There is no way that they would have gone through the torture that they did indeed go through if they had completely made up the tale of Jesus’ divinity. If you think about these things, the disciples most definitely were telling the truth.

In conclusion, the New Testament documents are reliable. The accuracy of the documents themselves, the fact that original writers were eyewitnesses, and the truthfulness of the disciples all prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. That gives enormous weight to Christianity!

Assembled in the Presence of God (Aren’t We All?)

Note: this is a short research paper that we had to write for class on a denomination of our choice.

The Assemblies of God denomination traces its roots back to a revival that began with a prayer meeting at Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas, on January 1, 1901. They claim that the people at this prayer meeting earnestly wanted to see the Lord’s work in their lives, so they were earnestly praying about it, and that God poured his Holy Spirit out on them, which they believed was the “baptism of the Holy Spirit,” which is spoken about in Acts. “[The] recipients of the experience, through study of the Scriptures, came to believe speaking in tongues is the biblical evidence for the baptism in the Holy Spirit.”

This leads to one of their distinctive doctrines, and that is that they believe that God baptizes people, who are already believers, in the Holy Spirit “to further empower them for Christian service.” The passages that they provide for proof are Acts 8:12-17, Acts 10:44-46, Acts 11:14-16, and Acts 15:7-9. The last three passages obviously have nothing to do with the matter, as they are all talking about the same thing: the first gentiles getting saved. Not an act after the fact (correct me if I’m wrong.) The Acts 8 passage for proof is very sketchy at best. The Assemblies of God also believe that “The initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is ‘speaking in tongues.’” The passage that they provide for proof for this point is Acts 2:4, which speaks of the Holy Spirit being initially given on the day of Pentecost: a one-time occurrence (unless you also look at the first gentiles which received the Holy Spirit, but these two events are very strongly related). Thirdly, they believe that “Divine healing is an integral part of the gospel. Deliverance from sickness is provided for in the atonement, and is the privilege of all believers.” Texts they provide as proof are Isaiah 53:4-5, Matthew 8:16-17, and James 5:14-16. Interpreting the first two passages to mean anything of the sort is just a gross hermeneutical blunder! Interpreting James 5:14-16 as a one hundred percent guarantee is also a serious hermeneutical mistake. Not as completely ridiculous as the first two passages, but severely misguided.

The purpose statement of the Assemblies of God hits a little closer to the mark than some of their doctrines do. It reads: “To be an agency of God for evangelizing the world. To be a corporate body in which man may worship God. To be a channel of God’s purpose to build a body of saints being perfected in the image of His son.”

The type of government in the church is congregational. The congregation elects a pastor, and a board of deacons to help him run the church. They only practice two ordinances: water baptism, and communion.

One of the Assemblies of God’s main strengths is that they have many of their doctrines right, most importantly the doctrine of salvation. However, several of them stand on no firm Biblical ground whatsoever. From reading some of the information and papers that they have posted on the official Assemblies of God website (http://ag.org), it seems apparent that they place an overemphasis on speaking in tongues as confirmation of being in the Spirit. They also have rather confused ideas of how the Spirit works. However, it has to be noted that the Assemblies of God has done a great deal to reach the world; they claim to have over 52 million members worldwide. In conclusion, the Assemblies of God has its pros and cons. I personally would not choose to align myself with them.

Semi-anonymity and purposes

I just started this blog to be a written outpouring of my life as a follower of Jesus Christ, through both the ups and the downs. The main motivation was to exercise this gift of writing that God has given me. I think that he has gifted me with a natural knack for the written word. While I may not be as gifted as some other people, I still want to exercise my writing talent, so that when I need it, I'll be up to the task that God provides. (Because writing is like a muscle, the more you do it, the better you get.) (Or like anything for that matter.)

So, I want to exercise this talent, and work on it, and refine it. Specifically, I think of the "parable of the talents," where the head honcho dude gave his servants varying amounts of money to use: one dude 5, one 2, and one just 1. As you may know, when the head honcho came back, the dude with 5 is like "Yo, I've put your cha ching to work, and hey look: I've got 5 more!"

And the head honcho is like "Good job! Now you get mucho rewardos!"

Same with the 2 dude: "Yo, I've got 2 more!"

"Mucho rewardos for you!"

But the dude with 1 was like "Um yeah, I was afraid that I would lose what little I've got, so yeah, I stuck it in the safe I've got in my floor, and yeah, here you go... you can have it back."

So the head honcho is like "You sucker! Get out of here! You're living on the street corner from now on!"
(That's the Ehud version)

I definitely don't want to be "dude with 1," and I know I'm probably not "dude with 5," but "dude with 2" did what the head honcho wanted him to do, and he got "muchos rewardos" in the end. Therefore, I want to use this talent to God's glory, so that when I really need it, it will be all sharpened up and in my pocket, ready for use.

However, I really want to go about this humbly. On my previous blog, I felt like I was constantly writing specifically for the people that read it. I mean seriously, if your mom and youth pastor and more or less everyone you know has access to your blog, you end up catering it to facilitate them to think positively of you.

Also, as I am currently 19, male, and single, I naturally am probably going to write about guy/girl relationships every now and then. I felt like on my previous blog I could not really address the topic, even from a Bible-centered perspective, as many of the girls that I know and am friends with/have relationships with to some extent have access to and frequently read my blog.

Because of those reasons, I am writing this blog semi-anonymously. "What does that mean?" You may ask. Well, I'm not going to tell anyone I know about this blog, and I'm not going to broadcast who I am. But, I am not going to all ends of the earth to cover my tracks. (I've written a completely anonymous blog before, and it becomes a hassle to be vague enough and yet specific, to cover your tracks, and come up with code names and the like.) If someone familiar with me and my life came across this blog, they could probably easily identify who it was. So if you figure out who "Ehud the Disciple" is, just keep it on the D.L., OK? But by all means, come back, keep reading.

But then again if you don't know who I am, well good, and feel free to pass it around if you are so inclined








So the goals of this blog are to:
1. Exercise my writing ability
2. Portray the life of one learning to be a disciple of Christ, both the ups, and some of the downs
3. To help me to focus my thoughts on Christ, by writing about related topics

About the Short Dude

Note: this is a response paper to a video we watched in class

I think that I really needed to hear what Nick Vujicic had to say. Often times, I do tend to focus on how bad things are, and not how I can serve God despite the “circumstances” that I have in my life. Nick learned how to persevere despite the horrible handicap of having no limbs. He innovated, and trusted God to make his life worthwhile. Who of us has any right to complain after seeing all of the things that Nick has endured? It pains me to see somebody so helpless, and so challenged by simple tasks such as putting shampoo in your hair. But how often have I complained? How often have I complained about the fact that I am dirt poor and have absolutely nothing to my name, complained about loneliness, complained about lack of direction, complained about difficulties in my own life, complained about not getting to do what I would really want to do at a given point in time, or complained about not getting something that I think I am entitled to?

However, after seeing Nick and how he deals with his myriad physical trials, it makes me just praise God for everything He has given me. I mean, I could not imagine living life without a single arm or leg, and Nick does it without any! I seriously do not think I could handle the loss of both of my legs. If I lost one, depending on where it was amputated at, I could possibly get a prosthetic. But both? I really don’t know what I’d do. I mean, no more skiing, no more biking, no more running, no more physical activity of any major sort PERIOD! I could maybe race wheel chairs or something… but how boring would that be? No, I could way more easily take the loss of my arms. I still couldn’t bike or mountainboard, but I could easily continue to ski and run. Yeah, you really don’t need arms to ski. They’re helpful, but you can do without. But being totally limbless? I just praise God for the fact that I have full use of all my extremities! I really do not think I could cope with the “circumstances” that Nick was placed in. Praise God for what he has given me!

About the Mountains, the Love of God, and the meaning of life

Note: this is a response paper that I had to write for class, on any topic brought up in the book. I chose to write on the mountains.

What David Jeremiah said in his book entitled Prayer: the Great Adventure about the mountains “clearing your head,” “something wonderful happens to you when you go to the mountains,” and “God created the mountains and the ocean as therapy for His people” is so true. Just last week I was struggling with some serious considerations in my head, that really aren’t all that uncommon. But last week was more intense than usual, more depressing and despairing. I found myself thinking, “I had such a conviction in the existence of God at one point, where has it gone to? God, if you are really out there, please show me once again the conviction that I had of your existence and your power.” All it took was one trip to the mountains, one day of delectable powder skiing, and seeing a snowflake fall on the screen of my phone, perfectly illuminating the intricacies apparent in each tiny flake which add up to form a mountain of powder skiing goodness. Each individual flake is so intricately woven together and crafted that it seems like an entity of amazing art all on its own, yet the sum total of the snow, trapped amidst the trees of Connie’s Coulee, refresh and revive life, and somehow make the world a better place. All of it, each individual flake and the whole slope of untracked powder, point to the fact that God is out there, God designed it all, God cares for us, God has a grand plan in mind and that He never, ever forgets us. Ultimately, this is why I love the mountains so much, and this is the reason that I love to ski as much as I do. To me, the simple fact that all of these elements (the snow, the mountains, the way the human body is created, the way the laws of gravity and meteorology work, the way the laws of physics in regards to the human body work, the way the laws of physics govern the interaction between the snow and the sticks) culminate in creating such an enjoyable sensation is proof that in the midst of the sickness and pervasion of relationships full of decay, the futility of the life of the atheist, and the general grime in the world, that God is still there, that He still loves us and cares for us and cherishes us as His children. God is truly there, and He is the only thing worth living for. The only thing.

Now, why is God the only thing worth living for? This is a conclusion that I have been taught, that many of us raised in the Church have been taught. But ultimately, it is not a thing one can be taught. No, this must be a conclusion that one comes to one his own. Read these verses:
Mark 8:34-37 "34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36 What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37 Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?"
Now, we, having been raised in the church, are constantly being told to "take up your cross, and follow Jesus." Now, I submit to you that most people do not know what this truly means. In fact, I would go as far as saying that I myself do not know the true extent of what it means to "lose my life for Jesus and the gospel." I don't know if even I am truly willing to "lose my life," for what does it mean? I submit to you that the vast bulk of people in Christianity do not in the smallest sense "lose their life for Jesus and the gospel." But that is the way we are called to live. Read also these verses:
Romans 12:1-2 "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-- this is your spiritual act of worship. 2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is-- his good, pleasing and perfect will. "
I would just like to say one thing about that passage. What happened to the animal to be sacrificed back in the Old Testament? The bull's blood was spilled, it was cut into pieces, laid on the altar and burned! Do you see many people living like that? I don't think so. But I do think it is what Christ has called us to.

So, if we call ourselves "Christian," that is what is truly asked of us. That is the Christian life. There is no strain for self gain, self promotion, or even self esteem of any kind. What we have left is God's will in our lives (living sacrifices, self denial), God's view of promotion (the last shall be first and the first shall be last), and God-esteem (1 Cor. 1:28-31, Gal. 6:14, the book of Romans, "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.").

Now, if we take Christianity, we must take the whole thing. If you throw out one bit, for instance, the bit that says homosexuality is a "perversion" (Romans 1:27), you are denying the inspiration of scriptures. As it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." So if you reject part of it, you are rejecting the fact that is truly from God. If you reject the fact that it is truly from God, you can then reject any portion of scriptures that you don't feel like submitting yourself to, such as what a "living sacrifice" is. If you take Christianity, you have to take all of it, or none of it.

Let us take a moment and consider taking none of it. What is left in life? There is absolutely nothing! You simply came about as a pure accident! What is taking place right now is simply a chemical reaction, simply chemicals that appear on the periodic table (mostly Carbon, I believe) mashing around with a bunch of energy/electricity to create this thing you consider to be life. But really, what is a school bus? A school bus is a bunch of chemicals that appear on the periodic table, mashing around with a bunch of energy to move a load of school kids from one place to another. Really, the atheist and the school bus are on the same level. The school bus actually is probably superior, due to the fact that it has a lot more of the materials that make up everything in it than you do. You, the atheist, are of less worth in the grand scheme of the universe than the school bus parked in the parking lot! Life sucks, and then you die, and are gone forever. In a few short generations no one will even remember that you ever EXISTED. Your existence is gone. And during your brief period of existence as a bunch of chemicals and energy, your existence is fraught with betrayal, disappointments, and pain. Why not just end it now?

In conclusion, we must choose one or the other, either all of Christianity, or none of it. If we choose none of it, we are left with nothing. But if we choose all of it, we are left with everything. And what evidence is there for all of it? Please go back up to paragraph one! (Look around in nature.)

If you would like to discuss any of these points or any points raised by this paragraph, please, leave a comment, email me, whatever. If you have differing opinions, that is totally ok, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. If you disagree with me on any point contained here, I would love to discuss it with you. Because if said position that you take does have merit to it and presents itself as the truth, then I must change my position to fit what the truth of the matter is. So please, let's have some discussion.

Who I am

I am not a "Christian" in the contemporary sense of the word. Yes, I read the Bible, yes, I go to church, and yes, most importantly, I align myself with Jesus Christ. However, if buying into the Catholic rigamarole makes you a Christian, then I am most definitely not one. If reprimanding sinners for living a life of sin makes you a Christian, again, I am not one. However, on the flipside, if pulling punches and preaching conformity makes you a Christian, yet again, I am not one of those either. The term "disciple" would be a better fit. "A (Bible-believing) disciple of Jesus Christ." Yes, that is what I am.